Sibghat Ullah Khan,J. Heard Sri H.S. Jain, learned counsel for petitioner in the first writ petition and Sri M.A. Khan, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Mohd. Aslam Khan, learned counsel for petitioner in the second writ petition, and Sri R.K. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.4, Prakash Narain Nigam, the landlord in both the writ petitions. 2. Landlord respondent No.4 filed application for release under Section 21 of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 against the tenant Sri Suresh Chandra Gupta. Property in dispute is a shop situate on ground floor and rate of rent is Rs.1260/- per month as mentioned in the release application. Release application was registered as P.A. Case No.2 of 2006. Prescribed Authority/ Civil Judge (S.D.), Mohanlalganj, Lucknow allowed the release application on 06.10.2008. Thereafter, original tenant Sri Suresh Chandra Gupta filed appeal being Rent Appeal No.43 of 2008. During pendency of appeal Sri Suresh Chandra Gupta died. Petitioner of the second writ petition, Sri Ajai Kumar Gupta his son filed substitution application praying for his substitution at the place of his deceased father as appellant and substitution of his mother and sisters as proforma respondents in the appeal. That application was allowed. Thereafter, mother of Sri Ajai Kumar Gupta, i.e. Smt. Pushpa Devi Gupta filed application for transposition as appellant. That application was rejected on 30.03.2013 by A.D.J., T.E.C.P.-I, Lucknow giving rise to the first writ petition. Earlier landlord had filed a Writ Petition in which a direction was issued for deciding the appeal expeditiously. Thereafter, appeal was dismissed in the absence of appellant on 07.12.2011 even though something was said on merit also. 3. Thereafter, restoration application was filed, which was rejected on 20.12.2011. Thereafter, Writ Petition (Rent Control) No.7 of 2012 was filed which was disposed of on 18.01.2012. Copy of the said order is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted below: "Since the matter is old one, it is being remanded back to the opposite party No.1 to be decided on merit after giving opportunity to the petitioner. Since there was order of the Court to decide the matter expeditiously within two months, therefore, one month's time is further allowed to the Special Judge/Additional District Judge, E.C.Act, Lucknow to decide the matter afresh on merit. The petitioner is directed to cooperate with the proceedings of the case. Since there was order of the Court to decide the matter expeditiously within two months, therefore, one month's time is further allowed to the Special Judge/Additional District Judge, E.C.Act, Lucknow to decide the matter afresh on merit. The petitioner is directed to cooperate with the proceedings of the case. Any adjournment taken by the petitioner would mean that there is avoidance on the part of the petitioner and it will be taken cognizance thereof against the petitioner. If the petitioner does not appear, matter can be dismissed in default. " 4. Thereafter, appeal was again dismissed in default by District Judge, Lucknow on 16.10.2012 and in the said judgment reference was made to the High Court's order dated 18.01.2012 also. Thereafter, restoration application was filed, which was dismissed in default. Thereafter, application for recall of the said order was filed, which was dismissed on 30.03.2013, copy of which is Annexure-10 to the writ petition. Through the second writ petition, the above orders including the last order dated 30.03.2013 have been challenged. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has repeatedly argued that petitioner deserves one opportunity of hearing. The argument is that appeal was transferred to another court but information was not given. In the order it is mentioned that information was sought to be given to the learned counsel of the appellant but he was not available. Now execution proceedings have been started. 6. In my opinion even though petitioner of second writ petition has not been as vigilant as he ought to be however looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that one opportunity of hearing may be granted to the petitioner on strict conditions. 7. As far as transposition is concerned, there is no harm in transposition of Smt. Pushpa Devi Gupta. Accordingly, Writ Petition (Rent Control) No.147 of 2013 is allowed. However, it is specifically directed that no such transposition application by any of the other legal representatives of original tenant who are proforma respondents in the appeal shall be entertained. They may engage a counsel and argue in support of the appeal but for that purpose, not a single day's adjournment shall be granted to them. 8. Accordingly, X A.D.J., Lucknow is directed to hear the appeal. They may engage a counsel and argue in support of the appeal but for that purpose, not a single day's adjournment shall be granted to them. 8. Accordingly, X A.D.J., Lucknow is directed to hear the appeal. (It is reported that court of A.D.J. T.E.C.P.I. is no more available.) All the impugned orders are set aside on the condition that entire rent from February, 2011 till December, 2013 at the rate of Rs.1260/- per month is paid to the landlord through draft to be drawn in the name of the landlord payable at Lucknow to be handed over to him before learned A.D.J. on the next date which is fixed to be 13.12.2013. It is further directed that on the said date, an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- shall also be deposited before the A.D.J. This amount of Rs.1,15,000/- shall not be paid to any one at present. Both the parties are directed to appear before the A.D.J. On 13.12.2013. 9. Learned A.D.J. shall make all efforts to hear the arguments in appeal as well as on all the pending applications on the said date. However, if it is not possible then another date before the start of winter vacation of 2013 may be fixed and matter shall positively be heard on the said date. In the first instance, eviction of the petitioner shall remain stayed until 13.12.2013. If on 13.12.2013, the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,15,000/- is deposited and arrears of rent are paid through draft, then the eviction shall remain stayed till disposal of appeal. Appellate court is directed not to grant any adjournment to any of the parties. However, if due to unavoidable circumstances some adjournment is absolutely essential then it must be only for one or two days. If any unnecessary adjournment is sought by the petitioner, landlord respondent would be at liberty to apply for recall of this order. 10. After 30 days of decision of the appeal, the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,15,000/- shall be returned to the petitioner. 11. Both the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. ________________